【Hacker News搬运】美国林务局决定在加利福尼亚州停止处方烧伤，这是历史重演

hackernews

Title: US Forest Service decision to halt prescribed burns in ca is history repeating

美国林务局决定在加利福尼亚州停止处方烧伤，这是历史重演

Text:

Url: https://cepr.net/us-forest-service-decision-to-halt-prescribed-burns-in-california-is-history-repeating/

由于我无法直接访问互联网来获取链接中的内容，我将基于您提供的标题和可能的上下文来创建一个假设性的分析总结。请注意，以下内容是基于假设的，并非基于实际链接内容。

---

标题：美国森林管理局决定在加州暂停计划烧除：历史在重演？

分析总结：

最近，美国森林管理局（US Forest Service）宣布在加州暂停计划烧除，这一决定引发了广泛的关注和讨论。这一决策似乎是对过去类似事件的回应，即历史上的森林火灾与计划烧除策略之间的关系。

计划烧除，又称预防性烧除，是一种旨在减少森林火灾风险和减轻火灾对社区影响的管理策略。通过控制烧除，可以清除易燃物质，减少火灾蔓延的速度和强度。然而，加州最近的这一决定似乎是对过去几年中频繁发生的极端火灾事件的反应。

以下是几个关键点：

1. **历史背景**：加州历史上曾多次因极端天气和干旱条件导致大规模森林火灾。这些火灾不仅造成了巨大的经济损失，还威胁了居民的生命安全。

2. **计划烧除的争议**：尽管计划烧除旨在预防火灾，但其效果和必要性在近年来受到了质疑。一些批评者认为，过度依赖烧除可能导致空气质量下降，同时增加了对环境的影响。

3. **当前决策的影响**：暂停计划烧除可能会增加火灾风险，尤其是在干旱季节。此举可能迫使当地政府和居民采取其他措施来应对潜在火灾威胁。

4. **政策调整的可能性**：这一决策可能促使政府重新审视其森林管理策略，包括对计划烧除的评估和调整。

总结来说，美国森林管理局在加州暂停计划烧除的决定可能是一个对历史教训的反应，同时也可能引发对森林管理策略的更广泛讨论。未来的政策和实践调整将取决于对这一决策的评估以及公众和专家的意见。

---

请注意，以上内容是基于假设的，实际内容可能与此不同。如果您需要了解具体内容，建议直接访问提供的链接。

Post by: danboarder

Comments:

darknavi: > This week, the U.S. Forest Service directed its employees in California to stop prescribed burning “for the foreseeable future,” a directive that officials said is meant to preserve staff and equipment to fight wildfires if needed.It sounds like it's a resourcing issue, not a change in philosophy. It doesn't change the fact that it won't be happening though.

darknavi: &gt；本周，美国林务局指示其在加利福尼亚州的员工在“可预见的未来”停止规定的焚烧，官员们表示，这一指令旨在保护员工和设备，以便在必要时扑灭野火 听起来像是；这是一个资源问题，而不是哲学的改变。它没有；不要改变它不会改变的事实；但这不会发生。

jeifneioka: Slight tangent, USFS has been using outdated models for their prescribed burns, and burned as late as July in my area, right at the beginning of fire season and months away from any expected precipitation. This turned into a big wildfire in my area and they spent ~$100m putting it out. You may have been able to get away with burning during the summer in the 90's here, but not anymore.I'm not opposed to prescribed burns, either, I think they are totally necessary. But do them in the fall, when you've got nothing but rain and cool temperatures for the next 6 months, instead of weeks before the hottest and driest stretch of the year.As to why they burn in early summer, they said at a community meeting it's because it requires fewer people to manage the fire.

jeifneioka: 轻微切线，USFS一直在使用过时的模型进行规定的烧伤，直到7月，在我所在的地区，就在火灾季节开始时，距离任何预期的降水还有几个月。这在我所在的地区变成了一场大火，他们花了大约1亿美元扑灭了这场大火。在90年代的夏天，你可能可以逃脱烧伤的惩罚；他在这里，但现在不在了 我；我也不反对规定的烧伤，我认为这是完全必要的。但在秋天，当你；在接下来的6个月里，我除了下雨和凉爽的气温什么都没有，而不是在一年中最炎热、最干燥的几周前 至于为什么它们在初夏燃烧，他们在一次社区会议上说；这是因为它需要更少的人来管理火灾。

JumpCrisscross: "scenario shows what happens when Congress is less committed than California to tackling forest management. With wildfire management funding constantly tied up in unpredictable budget debates, the current state-federal partnership is fragile and based on the whims of the legislative and executive branches, which can withhold funding based on which political party is currently in power. The Forest Service’s latest decision is the consequence of these issues"Would California have standing for damages? What would honestly be the consequences if the Governor and Legislature ordered Calfire to conduct controlled burns on federal land? (Can the Forest Service give Calfire permission to conduct burns on its land?)

JumpCrisscross: &“；该情景显示了当国会在解决森林管理问题上不如加利福尼亚州时会发生什么。由于野火管理资金不断被困在不可预测的预算辩论中，目前的州-联邦伙伴关系很脆弱，并且基于立法和行政部门的突发奇想，这些部门可以根据目前执政的政党扣留资金。林务局的最新决定就是这些问题的结果&quot 加州会要求赔偿吗？如果州长和立法机构命令加州消防局在联邦土地上进行受控焚烧，老实说会有什么后果？（林务局能否允许加州消防局在其土地上进行焚烧？）

kibwen: I have good news, this is a problem that will eventually solve itself.Though I also have bad news if you happen to own property in rural CA...

kibwen: 我有个好消息，这是一个最终会自行解决的问题 虽然我也有坏消息，如果你碰巧在中国农村拥有房产。。。

thegrim33: Somewhat meta, but can someone explain what an organization like this CEPR .. actually is?I see these types all the time, they're the ones that produce various "studies" that are always get linked on HN. They usually have some generic name, some combination of various buzzwords, and their website is them displaying all the various "research" and "studies" they've produced.Their stated goal is apparently to just "promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives".How do they actually make money? They say they've got 33 staff members and 14 board members/advisors. Do they all work for free?Do they actually sell some product somewhere? I see nothing on their site where something is for sale or where you can hire them for anything. Are they supported by ads somewhere?All they seem to do is just spend year and year pumping out various "studies" and articles. Are there unknown backers paying them to produce this content?

thegrim33: 有点元，但有人能解释一下像这个CEPR这样的组织吗。。实际上是 我经常看到这些类型的人，他们；是那些生产各种&quot；研究&quot；它们通常有一些通用名称，各种流行语的某种组合，它们的网站显示了所有各种&quot；研究&quot；以及&quot；研究&quot；他们；我生产 他们宣称的目标显然只是&quot；促进就影响人民生活的最重要的经济和社会问题进行民主辩论&quot 他们实际上是如何赚钱的？他们说他们；我有33名员工和14名董事会成员；顾问。他们都是免费工作的吗 他们真的在某个地方卖产品吗？我在他们的网站上没有看到任何东西可以出售，也没有任何东西可以雇佣他们。他们是否在某个地方得到了广告的支持 他们似乎只是年复一年地生产各种&quot；研究&quot；以及文章。是否有未知的支持者付钱让他们制作这些内容？